Absolutely false! ID proponents are unconcerned with data from the biological world. There is ample evidence for this claim in this thread, where ID proponents have been asked 53 times, by my count, for one shred of data or any other evidence which tends to support their theories. They have completely failed to provide anything, and don't even pretend to try; the response has been....silence. In addition, ID proponents on this thread have spent more time denigrating scientists and the scientific method than they have attempting to sell ID. This is of course very strange since they themselves are the ones who have claimed that ID is a scientifically provable alternative to evolution. This contradiction has been pointed out to them. The response to this charge has been.... silence. ID is in fact a purely political movement, conceived by radical Christians in an attempt to remake the Western world in a manner 'more consonant with theistic ideals'. Their aim is to impose their faith-based agenda on all member of society, most of whom do not share the same faith. In this sense. I have been wrong, since I assumed that ID was simply a rebranding of Creationism. It turns out it is much more insipid than that. Luckily, the response to ID propaganda here shows that it will be a fringe movement. Religion is a private matter, which belongs in the home. Parents are free to teach their kids ID theory, in the privacy of their own home. The ID'ers share their aims with another religiously based group active today, who hate the Western way of life and would like to see America remade in a manner 'consonant with theistic ideals'. These people have slightly different theistic ideals , but it is the same thing nevertheless.
Concur -- except that in this case, there really is only "one" ID proponent. Schizophrenia uber alles. Zeig Heil.
Anyone care to explain the scientific theories regarding the origins of the DNA Double - Helix? Anyone care to explain the scientific methods employed to duplicate the miraculous manner in which the ATG nucleotides so elegantly fell into place for the first time? What came before the "Big Bang", let's see some data on that! While 80%+ of the population in this country believes in a "god", the people who reference "Plagues" and "the Dark Ages" prefer to portray this as a movement strictly amongst the right-wing, "insipid", Christians fanatics. These same 80%+ who believe in a creator, are forced to send their children to public schools, already saturated with progressive-liberals who are all too eager to undermine people's beliefs in god. These same elitist-progressive-liberals VEHEMENTLY OPPOSE school-vouchers which would allow parents the opportunity to send their children to religious schools! Elitist, liberal, snobs, .... "We will Kill Your God. Your God doesn't allow us to vacuum out Fetus' and grind them into a pulp! Homo/Hetero sexuality ... Same Thing!" A belief in "God" is not inconsistent with Evolution ... Special note to traderNik, how about you look up the definition of "insipid", you're embarrassing yourself with the misuse of it.
Here's another question for you: If ever it was possible to duplicate the construction of a double-helix, and create all varieties of life in infinitely perverse and unnatural manners, Would this be considered designing by "Designers". it's funny how people immediately want to arrive at answers, when these types of debates do little but raise questions ...
So your argument for chance is because animals share "more similarities with us." More similarities than what else? Anyhoo, that is not an argument that favors chance over design. It is just as probable that we are similar to animals by design. u keep missin' the point: science cannot investigate god, there's no empirical evidence that can be collected to prove it's existence, nevermind its intervertion. You and others continue to mention God. I am talking about chance vs. design. Why is it that you conclude design=God? Design doesn't mean God necessarily...there are other non God possibilities. Simply put, it is by design or chance, and you can give no formula that doesn't require a prima facia assumption of chance by which to then conclude that chance itself is more probable. Sift through all the data, there is no evidence of design or chance, there is just data. It is a projection onto biological change that it is by chance or design, not any kind of direct evidence of change or design. Question is, if there is no direct evidence or proof of chance or design, since we don't really know....why are children indoctrinated into a belief system of ignorant chance?
TraderNik wrote: And I've asked repeatedly for evidence of the "no design" theory and the response has been silence. The reason we not making any progress here is because you ID critics want to subsume all the data concerning evolution as evidence for your "no design" theory and expect ID to come up with something entirely different, when in fact this same data can be subsumed by ID. You insist on pitting ID against evolution even though it has been repeatedly pointed out to you that ID is not anti-evolution, it is merely an alternative view about how evolution occurs. Modern design theory assimilates all of the constructive aspects of DE (Darwinian evolution) without trying to displace it, merely discarding its excess negative baggage regarding alternative mechanisms of biological causality. Modern design theory embraces all valuable, fundamental DE concepts like variation within populations and natural selection. The main respect in which ID differs from DE, and a distinction that will become increasingly clear, is that ID offers fundamental explanations of causes instead of "we don't know, so there must be no cause". ID is not antithetical to evolution, ID is evolution. Teleological evolution embraces not just biological causation, but causality in general, and represents the most explanatory and parsimonious evolutionary framework that has been developed to date. TraderNik wrote: Since ID employs the scientific method I have no idea what you are referring to. TraderNik wrote: ID is not an alternative to evolution. ID is an alternative to the blind watchmaker hypothesis that claims design is absent from the evolutionary process. TraderNik wrote: Sure, there is a political movement that has attached itself to the concept of ID just as there is a political movement that has attached itself to the concept of Darwinian evolution. That has nothing to do with the validity of the concept itself. TraderNik wrote: All metaphysics should be banned from public schools. This includes philosophical materialism masquerading as science.
yawn. already answered; u decide to ignore it and keep parrotin'. design=god in my book, if not explain what u mean by design since by definition it implies the world is the product of an actual will. for the last time, it's not as probable we are the product of design when it's all an abstract thought as we descend from apes that share similarities with us: that's a fact and can help us establish links from solid grounds. we sure can also share similarities with somethin' that can be imagined as similar to us...again this is not the concern of science and neither should be that of schools and teachers. u see, u can make a case for studyin' links between us and apes by lookin' back at few centuries ago we thought the earth was flat and the sun was orbitin' around it as we thought god made our planet immobile and at the center of the universe: scientists dismissed that and theories were given the chance after many years to be proven correct by evidence. u want the last word as usual, no prob. it's a waste of time to argue with u when u keep askin' for evidence about non id design while u have the balls to say evidence for id is everywhere, u are surprised nobody sees it and yet cannot provide any shred of evidence uself. pathetic. adieu edit; by the way u are really confused about the purpose of science. science is concerned with explorin' nauture and findin' answers within it. science plays a role in findin' links that rebuts divine intervention in certain aspects of the process of nature...if u dont like that fine but dont come here and say it shouldnt be taught at school because that's what would happen if u had it your way.
I must be touching some nerve in you bitty, you are getting a bitty bit snippy and caustic here. Enjoy your weekend...